• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

And Congress IS AS BAD AS BIDEN!!

Seven in ten Americans to Biden: Get out

ED MORRISSEY Jul 02, 2022 at HotAir: 

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

And Joe Biden thought his job approval numbers look bad. They do, of course, but according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, his re-elect numbers look worse. Seventy-one percent of respondents do not want Biden to run in 2024, leaving 29% — about nine points lower than his current RCP average — backing Biden’s re-election.

By golly, I think we found Biden’s floor. Maybe:

Seven in 10 Americans say they do not want President Biden to run for a second term, according to a new poll that comes as Biden’s approval numbers remain low and his party braces for losses this November.

A Harvard CAPS–Harris Poll survey shared exclusively with The Hill found that 71 percent of respondents polled do not think Biden should run for a second term, compared to 29 percent who say he should run.

Among the contingent of respondents who believe the president should not run, 45 percent said Biden should not make another bid because he is a bad president, while about one-third of respondents said he is too old and about one-quarter said because it is time for a change.

How bad is it? Pollster Mark Penn told The Hill that Biden would only get 30% support in a Democratic primary. The general-election numbers should be bad enough to generate interest in one, too. If you add 45% and 25% and 33%, you get … 103%, no? Clearly these reasons overlap each other. There appears to be a significant contingent who feel that Biden is a bad president and he’s too old and it’s time for a change.

Biden actually scores worse than Donald Trump on re-elect opinion in this poll by ten points. Not that Trump’s numbers are anything to write home about either:

But a majority of respondents — 61 percent — also say former President Trump should not run for the White House in 2024. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said the former president should run again.

Among the respondents polled who believe Trump should not make another bid in the next presidential cycle, 36 percent said Trump was erratic, 33 percent said he would divide the country and 30 percent said he was responsible for Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of pro-Trump supporters ransacked the Capitol in an effort to stop Congress from certifying the election results.

That’s good data for the GOP when the primary season opens up after the first of the year. In a Biden v Trump rematch, the Harvard/Harris poll notes, 60% of respondents would consider voting independent — and that includes 53% of Republicans, along with 64% of Democrats. Neither party can say they weren’t warned.

However, Republicans already know they’ll have a presidential primary, and they also have a bench for it. Democrats have a first-term incumbent president and no bench. They desperately need a strong enough alternative to push Biden out, but … who would that be? Gavin “French Laundry” Newsom, who barely avoided a recall last year? Or another of its clique of grayhairs born before rock and roll was invented?

Note well when they conducted the survey, too — June 28 and June 29. The Supreme Court released the Dobbs and Bruen decisions almost a week earlier. Democrats have used both, but mainly the demise of Roe in the Dobbs decision, as an argument for electing their party in the midterms. They have also used the recent Supreme Court decisions and the January 6 committee hearings to paint Trump as the worst threat to the nation. And yet, while both men have terrible re-elect numbers, Biden’s are ten points worse and his party’s more likely to vote independent by eleven points in a rematch.

The first party that figures out that voters want a fresh start in 2024 will hit the electoral jackpot. It’s possible that both parties will fail to realize this, but at least the GOP has good alternatives at hand.

Our Beautiful, Civilized USA Began Its LOSS of Civility During The Late 1960s….!!!

JULY 2, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER  at Power Line:

THE GREAT CRACKUP CONTINUES

Is America in the process of breaking up? I don’t know. It might be. These poll data from the University of Chicago Institute of Politics are sobering, to say the least.

Start with this:

…28 percent of voters, including 37 percent who have guns in their homes, agree that “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government.” That view is held by one in three Republicans, including 45 percent of self-identified strong Republicans. Roughly one in three (35 percent) Independent voters and one in five Democrats agreed.

People don’t always mean what they say to pollsters. Sometimes they are sticking up for their party (e.g., the 40% or so who claim to think Joe Biden is doing a good job), sometimes they are trying to make a point. I think the latter is going on here. But still.

This one is stunning:

A majority of Americans agree that the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me,” including 73 percent of voters who describe themselves as a “strong Republican,” 71 percent who called themselves “very conservative” and 68 percent of rural voters. A bare majority (51 percent) of voters who call themselves “very liberal” also agreed. Overall, two-thirds of Republican and Independent voters agree that the government is “corrupt and rigged” against them, while Democrats are evenly split.

Sadly, it is hard to argue with the majority who condemn our government in these uncompromising terms. Certainly when we look at what elites have done to ordinary Americans–the price of gasoline and groceries, the ongoing destruction of our former system of cheap and reliable electricity, the abandonment of our Southern border–“corrupt and rigged against ordinary people” seems like a fair description.

This one is striking too:

About three-quarters (73 percent) of voters who identify themselves as Republican agree that “Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree.” An almost identical percentage of Democrats (74 percent) express that view of Republicans. A similarly lopsided majority of each party holds that members of the other are “generally untruthful and are pushing disinformation.”

The lack of mutual trust and respect between left and right is saddening. Of course, it is true of any kind of political process that it involves “imposing…political beliefs on those who disagree.” I am reminded of that every time I pay taxes.

But the more expansive government is, the more people are likely to feel that it is imposing someone else’s beliefs on them. The less government, the more opportunity for people to go their own way. Then, too, this question wasn’t limited to imposing beliefs through government action. In today’s world, conservatives rightly think that liberal beliefs are being imposed on them by universities, social media platforms, corporations and other institutions, as well as by government.

I’ve been reading about a dangerous polarization in American political life for as long as I can remember. But one gets the sense that today, it is actually happening. It isn’t just that people disagree about important matters: the whole point of the political process is to resolve important disagreements. The difference today is that on both sides of the political divide, there is little sense of shared values, shared community and a common commitment to America and its future. While I don’t think Americans will be shooting at each other in the streets any time soon, it does seem that increasing numbers are open to the idea that red and blue America should peacefully go their separate ways.

Note from the title…..GHR

I was teaching Russian at the University of Minnesota High School when President John F. Kennedy was murdered, that November 22, 1963. Woodstock and The Rise of Deceit and Greed of leaders, mostly lefties began their overwhelming gifts of national garbage, evil in news, schools, universities, press LED TO THIS VERY DAY BY Dems!

Churches, Synagogues, and Civil Learnings and “loving” ones neighbor have been disappearing ever since.

“South Africans are struggling in the dark to cope with increased power cuts that have hit households and businesses across the country”.

South Africans left in the dark after grid collapse

by JAZZ SHAW Jul 02, 2022 at HotAir:

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)

South Africa is one of the most developed nations on the continent of Africa, with a GDP higher than any other nation there except Nigeria. They also boast a more advanced infrastructure than most of their neighbors. But this week you might not have been able to recognize those advancements since large parts of the country wound up being subjected to rolling blackouts for large portions of each day. Many residents claimed that the power was off for as much as nine hours per day. South Africa relies on electrical heating for a majority of both residential and business properties and winter has arrived there, so the situation is growing critical. But these outages didn’t have anything to do with winter storms or other natural disasters. Like many other countries, South Africa’s electrical grid simply couldn’t keep up with the demand for power, and the main utility company in the country, Eskom, was forced to cycle the power off to avoid having the grid collapse entirely. (Associated Press)

South Africans are struggling in the dark to cope with increased power cuts that have hit households and businesses across the country.

The rolling power cuts have been experienced for years but this week the country’s state-owned power utility Eskom extended them so that some residents and businesses have gone without power for more than 9 hours a day.

A strike by Eskom workers added to the utility’s woes including breakdowns of its aging coal-fired power plants, insufficient generation capacity and corruption, according to experts.

Eskom has already released a statement saying that the blackouts are not a temporary situation. They estimate that it will take “years” to stabilize the power grid, assuming they can manage the feat at all.

This didn’t need to happen. South Africa has always relied primarily on coal-fired power plants because the country sits on rich deposits of coal. But their leaders have followed the same trends we’re seeing in other developed nations around the world, growing “squeamish” about using coal and looking to set up more solar and wind energy farms. Maintenance of some of the coal plants has been neglected because they anticipated the eventual closure of those facilities. Some of them have gone offline.

Meanwhile, demand for electricity has only increased. When people attempt to draw more electricity off the grid than it’s capable of producing, bad things happen. Hence the planned, rolling blackouts by Eskom. They can’t simply wave a magic wand and make more energy appear.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. As we previously explored here in detail, these types of blackouts are now taking place around the world. Large portions of northwestern Europe wound up sitting in the dark last fall when the North Sea winds stopped blowing for weeks on end.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is just an African problem or a European problem. The blackouts have already begun in the United States. Thus far they have primarily been limited to California and Texas, but that’s about to change as we move further into the summer. Rolling blackouts are expected to impact at least 14 other US states this summer and there will likely be even bigger shortages in the winter if we see a significant cold snap.

The warning bells have been ringing for some time now and the utility companies around the country have made the situation clear. It will require government action and cooperation to significantly increase our electrical generation capacity. Our power demands have simply grown too large for our aging, primitive power grid to handle. And we’re not going to address these shortfalls with another batch of wind farms. If we fail to act immediately, much of the United States will experience what South Africa is facing today. And I can assure you that there are going to be a tremendous number of very unhappy and likely angry people out there scrambling to find candles.

”….never miss an opportunity to tell the world of the sins and imperfections of “old white men.”

July 2, 2022

An Ode to Old White Men

By William D. Howard at American Thinker:

I like ‘old white men’: Socrates, Abe Lincoln, Moses, even Ronald Reagan. As an ‘old black man’ once said, we should judge people based upon their character, not their race. The so-called “progressive” faction of the Democratic Party, known for their “Holier Than Thou” brand of political rhetoric: “Political Correctness,” CRT and their signature achievement in “Wokeness,” and “Cancel Culture,” never miss an opportunity to tell the world of the sins and imperfections of “old white men.” By using this collective epithet they have committed three acts of bigotry in one short statement: ageism, racism, and sexism. How ironic that a political party that never tires of espousing the virtues of multiculturism, inclusiveness, diversity, and tolerance, rarely finds anything good to say about “old white men.”

This is, of course, not by accident. Theirs is a malicious mindset that forgoes serious, objective analysis. They are not interested in taking the time to look at facts or even to fairly consider the opinions of others. For them It is much easier to smear, slander, or libel their opponents. It is far easier to attack another person’s unknown motives, call them racists, misogynist, or white supremacist. By using this radical tactic, they get a jump on their opposition. The opposition hesitates to respond and spends valuable time trying to defend their good name. The radical mindset is not interested in a search for truth. People like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Adolf Hitler had no need of other people’s truth. They claimed an omniscience that ordinary people only attribute to God. Who on America’s current political scene seems more certain of his or her personal version of truth than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? In the Democratic presidential debates which took place before the 2020 nomination, various Democrat candidates pointed out the cauldron of anger bubbling up in Sanders and Warren’s statements. This tendency towards the extreme is intrinsic to the Left, not just something based upon the personal failings of two left-wing politicians. Sanders and Warren’s anger are singular only in degree. Attempting to destroy the opposition by using extreme rhetoric has a long and ugly history on both the Left and the Right, but is uniquely systemic to the Left.

Theirs is a totalitarian mindset that refuses to recognize what people call an honest difference of opinion. It is a systemic characteristic of the Left’s analysis, part of their collectivist (Marxist) view of society. For them Individualism is ignored, while economic classes, racial groupings and other types of “Identity politics” rule supreme. The right wing also produces demagogues, but they are exactly that, evil individuals who abuse power. They are not part of conservative ideology. Edmund Burke in his “Reflection on the Revolution in France” brilliantly explained the conservative position on life and government. He prophetically explained the reasons why radicalism would fail in France and produce unnecessary human suffering. Inherent in conservatism is a basic recognition of the weakness, corruptibility, and limited wisdom of human beings. Based upon this primary starting point, conservatives value the lessons of history. They are highly suspicious of radical change and when change is needed, they prefer it to be gradual and prudent, not spasmodic, like Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” or his “Cultural Revolution.” The wise men who created our Constitution insisted on “checks and balances” and a “separation of powers,” all of which were intended to prevent a convulsive rush to popular judgement. They created a federal government that left most authority and political direction to the states. These “old white men” were wise enough to create a government that has withstood the test of time and become the envy of the world. As we see from the current protests over the Supreme Court decision on abortion rights, the youthful Left is running wild in the streets. They are calling for radical changes to be immediately implemented. They are calling for packing the Supreme Court and using federal lands as places to exterminate the unborn. These are the same highly emotional, poorly educated mobs who, after George Floyd’s death, took part in riots and wanted to smash our system of government and create a new society out of whole cloth. These are the same young people who without proof rushed to indict all white Americans as guilty of “systemic racism.” For these same people anyone who disagrees with “abortion on demand” is necessarily a hater of women. They arrogantly claim to have a clear window into the souls of other people. To quote Miguel de Cervantes, they believe that “Facts are the enemy of truth.” Like the bloodthirsty Parisian mobs which supported the radical government of the French Revolution, they don’t need facts, only strongly held feelings, of which they clearly have an abundance. The youthful response of “progressives” to the recent Supreme Court decision reveals just how close we are to the dangers of anarchy and radicalism in America.

William D. Howard is a freelance writer who had a long career as an educator.

Today’s Dems ARE PRETTY GOOD AT STUNTS!!

CBS/YouGov poll: Beto still doing about as well as you’d think after Uvalde stunt

by ED MORRISSEY Jul 01, 2022 at HotAir:  

AP Photo/Andres Leighton

Texans may not be completely enamored of Greg Abbott, but he’s clearly preferable to the alternative. CBS and YouGov polled the Lone Star State in the wake of the mass shooting in Uvalde and found that voters panned Abbott’s response and especially the performance of local law enforcement to the school shooting.

That shouldn’t surprise anyone under the circumstances:

A month after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texans are overwhelmingly critical of law enforcement’s response to the shooting, and a majority feel it’s important to investigate their response. Most Texans are concerned about another mass shooting.

Texans rate Gov. Abbott’s response to Uvalde more negatively than positively.

The poll also shows Abbott well underwater on job approval, 46/54. Normally, an incumbent executive with those numbers would be well advised to start looking for a good think-tank position in the following January. And yet …

More than half also disapprove of Abbott’s overall job performance, but Abbott still leads Beto O’Rourke by eight points among likely voters in the race for governor.

Despite only getting a 46% approval rating in this poll, Abbott gets 49% support on the election question. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke can only eke out 41% in the first CBS/YouGov polling look at the Texas gubernatorial race. That lines up exactly with O’Rourke’s RCP aggregate average in polling, and Abbott actually does slightly better than his 47.7% RCP average.

Abbott isn’t exactly bowling over Texans on issue ratings, either. He gets a 50/50 on the economy, 54/46 on education, and … is underwater everywhere else. And when I say “underwater,” I mean drowning. Abbott gets 27/73 approval on gas prices and 44/56 on the border crisis, both of which are significantly outside of Abbott’s control. But Abbott is also 43/57 on gun policy after Uvalde, 41/59 on abortion, and 37/63 on the status of Texas’ electrical grid, all of which are almost entirely in his portfolio.

Imagine a scenario where Abbott had to run against a serious Democratic nominee rather than a self-promoting clown like O’Rourke. That’s an especially acute question for Texas Democrats after O’Rourke’s stunt in Uvalde, in which he tried to hijack a press briefing on the massacre to cut a campaign ad. That took place five weeks ago, and has produced no groundswell of support. It hasn’t exactly eroded Beto’s polling either, but it’s becoming apparent that he has a ceiling in the low 40s even when paired one-on-one against a marginally unpopular incumbent.

What would this have looked like if Texas Democrats had drafted Henry Cuellar instead? Hmmm.

On the other hand, this poll looks pretty contradictory. CBS News uses it to report on how popular the components of John Cornyn’s bipartisan guns bill are:

Nearly half of Texans report that the Uvalde shooting has spurred them to support some gun restrictions, and there is support in Texas for some measures.

In backing many potential gun measures, Texas looks much like the nation as a whole.

We see bipartisan backing for measures like universal background checks and making the minimum age for buying an AR-15 at least 20 years old.

So Cornyn must be pretty danged popular around the corral, eh? Er …

Ted Cruz opposed all those measures and is significantly more popular in Texas. Well, at least significantly less unpopular. In fact, according to this survey, Cornyn’s even less popular than Joe Biden (41/59). I find that very difficult to believe, except in terms of just a short-term expression of frustration over Cornyn’s involvement in negotiating with Chris Murphy on the guns bill, which doesn’t actually restrict guns at all.

One has to wonder whether Abbott’s standing is understated as well. If Texans really thought Abbott was doing this poorly, even O’Rourke would get some traction. As it is, though, 55% of independents are sticking with Abbott, and Beto trails among both men and women and in every age demo. Maybe Abbott has a deep connection to voters even when they’re unhappy about his specific performance … or maybe Beto is just that bad.

“Covering Up The Truth Of The 2020 Election…”

The J6 Show Trial Is Lying About Election ‘Fraud’

BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY at the Federalist:

JULY 01, 2022

The January 6 show trial is partly about persecuting political opponents. But it’s also about covering up the truth of the 2020 election.

Author Mollie Hemingway profile

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY

The purpose of the January 6 committee is to further the lie that there was nothing seriously wrong with the 2020 election and to criminalize any questioning of the election. The January 6 riot gives the committee a nice hook, but that’s not what they really care about.

They want to prevent you from admitting the election was irregular, faulty, or anything less than the most perfect election in the history of mankind, and from supporting people who fought against those irregularities. In service of this goal, the January 6 committee repeatedly lied about the actual claims Donald Trump supporters have made about the flaws in the election.

The January 6 Committee is conducting a show trial, not a criminal one. Show trials, common in authoritarian regimes, are held for propaganda purposes, to punish political opponents, and to cover up the truth of what the regime has done.

Democrats’ show trial is completely one-sided. The members on the committee were appointed exclusively by Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. There are zero Republican-appointed members. In fact, Pelosi refused to allow the top Republicans Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy picked for the committee — an unprecedented violation of House rules and norms.

No one represents the accused or advocates for their rights. No cross-examination or presentation of a defense has been allowed from the targets of the trial. The committee does not follow House rules on evidence or witness depositions. The so-called investigation has declared off-limits any good-faith inquiry into issues that contradict their persecution, whether a look at what led to the lack of security by Capitol police forces or a look at the legitimate concerns about the unique and novel way the 2020 election was conducted.

The show trial is deeply and profoundly un-American. This week’s “surprise” hearing has already imploded under the weight of the inaccurate testimony given by young staff assistant Cassandra Hutchinson. But last Thursday’s episode also deserves scrutiny for the lies it contained.

That hearing was focused on Jeffrey Clark, a Department of Justice (DOJ) official during the Trump administration who had proposed more aggressive investigative and legal efforts in the controversial aftermath of the 2020 election than many of his peers. Incidentally, among the growing concerns about a ream of false statements given is a report that Hutchinson also lied about Clark.

The Misdirection On ‘Fraud’

The “storyline” for the committee’s June 23 televised spectacle revolved around a letter that Clark drafted and wanted other DOJ officials to sign and send to the leadership of the Georgia state legislature. Here’s a portion of Rep. Liz Cheney’s loaded remarks about this. Before reading them, it should be noted that it has already been shown that Cheney repeatedly lied about DOJ lawyer Ken Klukowski throughout the hearing:

Neither Mr. Clark nor Mr. Klukowski had any evidence of widespread election fraud, but they were quite aware of what Mr. Trump wanted the department to do. Jeff Clark met privately with President Trump and others in the White House and agreed to assist the president without telling the senior leadership of the department who oversaw him.

As you will see, this letter claims that the US Department of Justice’s investigations have ‘Identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia.’ In fact, Donald Trump knew this was a lie. The Department of Justice had already informed the president of the United States repeatedly that its investigations had found no fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The words fraud or fraudulent were used some 50 times in Thursday’s hearing, typically in the way they’re used in the excerpt above. The Democrat-appointed members would claim that Clark was alleging election fraud and, further, that everything about the election had been fully investigated and there was no evidence of problems with the election.

There are two major problems with Cheney’s argument. First, if she had read Clark’s letter, she would have noticed that while it did discuss major identified problems with the election potentially affecting the outcome, it never once alleged fraud. Second, it is highly debatable that the problems with the election were ever competently investigated or even understood.

If you look at the actual letter Clark drafted for discussion, he referenced “various irregularities,” “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election,” and “irregularities, sworn to by a variety of witnesses.” He referenced a report arising from Georgia Senate hearings that had taken sworn testimony and affidavits from many people about the chaotic and troubling administration of the Georgia election.

The complaints included problems with ballot custody, inability to monitor vote tabulation, inadequately maintained voter lists, and the counting of ballots from ineligible voters. The testimony even included something that would become a massive concern of election integrity advocates — the private takeover of government election offices by Mark Zuckerberg-funded groups.

And Georgia really was a mess, Fulton County in particular. None of Fulton County’s respected Republican election commissioners voted to certify the election. They had numerous problems, including that the first certification vote was taken just hours after Fulton County was still finding, processing, and tabulating ballots.

During the run-off, thumb drives were accidentally left in voting machines, exacerbating their previous concerns about ballot custody and chain of command issues. The commissioners also were concerned that no chain of custody information had been provided to them, even after they asked, for the 38 drop boxes spread throughout the country. The commissioners were concerned that no meaningful efforts had taken place to verify signatures on mail-in ballots.

It is false to claim that these things were properly investigated or that, if they were, there was no evidence to support them. Many independent analysts have determined that the Zuckerberg-funded takeover of government election offices significantly affected the outcome of the election.

That was where nearly $450 million was given — with a focus on the Democrat areas of swing states — to help run Get Out The Vote efforts. In an election that came down to 43,000 votes across three states, it is not difficult to make an overwhelming case that the Zuckerberg funding alone was outcome determinative.

It would have been difficult to properly investigate that in the short time period after the election, but it’s absolutely false to say it was investigated, much less thoroughly.

More Than 12,000 Illegal Votes In Georgia

Clark also expressed in his draft letter a “troubling” concern over a lawsuit that was being slow-tracked by a Georgia judge. He urged action because, “Despite the action having been filed on December 4, 2020, the trial court there has not even scheduled a hearing on matter, making it difficult for the judicial process to consider this evidence and resolve these matters on appeal prior to January 6.”

His concern was extremely well-founded. That lawsuit, widely regarded at the time as being strong and based on legitimate election problems, ended up being vindicated. In their lawsuit, the Trump campaign claimed that tens of thousands of voters had moved without registering to vote in their new residence. To get the figures about changes of address, the campaign looked at the National Change of Address data set, a secure data set of information on people who have filed a change of address with the United States Postal Service.

Filing a change-of-address form with the post office doesn’t conclusively mean the person is no longer eligible to vote at his or her former address. Some of those address changes could be college students or military members serving elsewhere. They would still be eligible to vote at the address they changed their mail from being delivered to.

But many of them reflected permanent moves to new cities and states. In fact, with around 10 percent of the population moving each year, and inadequate maintenance of voter rolls, experts say there are literally millions of bogus registrations on voter rolls all over the country. Such a situation doesn’t necessitate fraud, but it does make the situation ripe for fraud or the illegal casting of votes.

There were around 122,000 Georgia voters in 2020 who told the Postal Service they were moving to a new county in Georgia with a “move effective date” of more than 30 days before the election and who failed to re-register in their new county in time to be eligible to vote in the general election.

The secretary of state specifically instructs, citing Georgia law, that doing this means “you have lost your eligibility to vote in the county of your old residence.” Voters are required to register in the new county. “Remember, if you don’t register to vote by the deadline, you cannot vote in that particular election,” the secretary of state instructed.

The vast majority of the 122,000 voters who moved obeyed the law and did not try to vote in their old county. But thousands of voters appeared to break the law by casting a vote in a county in which they didn’t live. Most did so by voting absentee ballot, albeit many by early in-person absentee voting rather than mail-in voting.

Nearly all of these voters appeared to have voted in the wrong state house district, and more than 85 percent appeared to have voted in the wrong state senate district. Nearly two-thirds appeared to have voted in the wrong congressional district. And all of them appeared to be illegal votes in all races, since they would be ineligible to vote by law. Those who made similar moves but did not register to vote at their new address, and therefore didn’t vote, had obeyed the law.

The issue is important because it shows “the folks who obeyed the law didn’t get to vote, and the folks who broke it did get to vote,” Mark Davis, a Republican data expert in Georgia who raised alarms about the problem, said last year. Davis was a fighter for election integrity in a state that could be lax about enforcing its basic laws. He drew attention to several problems, including vulnerabilities enabling double voting.

“For years and years and years, I’ve kind of been that nerd over there that will bore you to tears talking about election integrity,” he jokes. He’s been an expert witness in five different election cases, usually dealing with problems caused by failure to place voters in their proper municipal district or related to change-of-address issues.

Davis shared the information with the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, which has admitted the problem, although it made excuses for the admittedly illegal votes.

Incidentally, it was this lawsuit that was being discussed when President Trump told the secretary of state to “find” votes. That was wrongly characterized as the president trying to pressure someone to invent a finding of problematic votes. Here’s why.

The latest update on these illegal votes is that evidence indicates more than 12,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — exceeding the 11,779 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The campaign knew that the problem of illegal voting may be more than the margin of victory that Biden, which would have meant that the state would grant relief.

But the campaign also knew their lawsuit was being slow-tracked and that it could take more than a year to get confirmation on the numbers without help from the secretary of state. They had also listed categories of other major problems potentially affecting the margin of victory.

They just needed the secretary of state’s office to care about enough of the illegal votes earlier. While at least this illegal voting portion of the campaign’s lawsuit was vindicated, it wasn’t vindicated in a timely enough fashion to matter.

Different Legal Strategies Are Not A Crime

The Soviet-style show trial has featured testimony from people in Trump’s administration who did not think it wise to keep challenging election results, particularly after the Electoral College had convened. I know and interviewed many of them for “Rigged,” my book on the 2020 election.

They found the post-election day legal efforts led by Trump to be poorly strategized and executed. I share details about some of those debacles in the book, particularly how Rudy Guiliani took a promising Pennsylvania case with superstar attorneys — about disparate treatment of voters — into a case about fraud, thereby ruining it. That decision also led judges in other states to get nervous and impatient about other cases.

It also increased anxiety among establishment attorneys who had previously been part of the legal effort. Many of these attorneys were also having their lives and reputations threatened by NeverTrump groups, who were posting personal information and sending mobs to harass them.

Trump administration officials had major concerns — prior to the election — about the lack of election integrity provided by the rush to widespread mail-in voting. For example, former Attorney General Bill Barr said in September 2020 that expansive mail-in voting was “playing with fire.”

But these officials also believed it wasn’t really the job of the Justice Department to pursue investigations about the issue. They were willing to look into various claims that were swirling about, but considered it to be more of a local or regional crime issue that could rise to the level of DOJ interest, rather than something that should be driven from the headquarters down.

The January 6 show trial has tried to suggest that problems with the 2020 election were thoroughly investigated. Evidence for the claim is lacking. Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bill McSwain has publicly said he was told by Barr to stand down from investigating, a claim Barr publicly denies. McSwain wrote Trump was “right to be upset about the way the Democrats ran the 2020 election in Pennsylvania — it was a partisan disgrace.”

He added, in a letter to Trump that was later publicized, “On Election Day and afterwards, our Office received various allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities. As part of my responsibilities as U.S. Attorney, I wanted to be transparent with the public and, of course, investigate fully any allegations. Attorney General Barr, however, instructed me not to make any public statements or put out any press releases regarding possible election irregularities. I was also given a directive to pass along serious allegations to the State Attorney General for investigation — the same State Attorney General who had already declared that you could not win. I disagreed with the decision, but those were my orders. As a Marine infantry officer, I was trained to follow the chain of command and to respect the orders of my superiors, even when I disagree with them.”

Again, Barr denies this accounting. And he’s publicly said he did try to run down various allegations of fraud that were being bandied about.

Clark’s superiors at the Department of Justice did not want him to pursue his aggressive efforts, but he was also discussing the topic with their superior, the president himself. He tried to pursue a more aggressive strategy than the one that many DOJ officials thought prudent.

Reasonable people can see both sides here. Prudence — particularly so late in the game — is a huge issue. More tenacious fighting for election integrity is also virtuous. Many leaders up to and including Trump himself should have done far more — far earlier — to fight Democrats’ coordinated and widespread attacks on the integrity of the country’s election system. Many Republican officials were sounding the alarm in the months prior, but more should have been done to effectively fight before the election, including a legal strategy to fight the chaos, confusion, and corruption that was almost certainly going to occur.

But differing legal strategies are not crimes, no matter how much Pelosi and Cheney and their media bootlickers would like them to be. It is reasonable to oppose Clark’s strategy, but the letter causing so much dispute was not about fraud. It was about the many other problems affecting the integrity of the election. It was also — and it says this clearly on every page — a draft product for discussion. The letter urged state legislatures to ensure the integrity of their state’s elections when there was cause for concern. The Constitution does give that responsibility to the states.

The January 6 show trial is partly about persecuting political opponents. But it’s also about covering up the truth of the 2020 election. Turning questions about the many problems with the 2020 election into a crime is the type of thing that is done in third-world countries. Persecuting people who talk about it or try to do something about it is what you expect in corrupt authoritarian regimes. It is horrific to see it happening here.

“America Is A Nation In Decline” Starring Joe Biden!

July 1, 2022

The Coincidence of Crises

By Sam Besserman at American Thinker:

COVID-19, Joe Biden, and Russian-Ukrainian ‘crises’ are pages from the same playbook written by an international clique that controls both sides. This global cartel presented us, the American public, with a false dichotomy. Either stand with their 21st Century perversion of our country of which we were once proud, or surrender our morally-ruined nation to the adversary of their choosing.

America is a nation in decline, and for that reason we saw the installation of Joe Biden. He is the demented old face of a bygone era that the people wish would be brushed aside in favor of a new order. It is no coincidence that a man who so succinctly matches our country’s state of affairs ascended to our highest office. Were our next election to be truly fair and competitive, as nearly every single political commentator on television implies, it would make sense that Trump’s return or the debut of an equivalent populist figure would be inevitable.

Hanlon’s Razor would find that incompetence, not malice, resulted in a Biden presidency. With Biden and his blundering European counterparts sending their respective countries into crisis after crisis, the government-corporate conglomerate media generously chooses to combat the public’s suspicion by promoting the ‘competence’ of these regimes, rather than their loyalties.

Sanctions and corporate departures designed to stymie economic strength in Russia – since acknowledged as complete failures – actually ceded the economic hold of Western nations. Yet our government has made no effort to reverse the funneling of global economic control to Russia – which they began – or the dismantling of our own economic hegemony. Ignorance is feigned as to how the western corporate exodus resulted in an instantaneous usurpation by primed and ready Russian counterparts. The Keystone Pipeline, French nuclear plants, and German coal plants have all been intentionally and simultaneously shuttered under the façade of the convenient eternal enemy of ‘Climate Change’.

A paltry sum of Russian foreign exchange reserves – already recouped by Russia due to the skyrocketing price of oil instigated by Biden and his cronies – was illegally seized, providing Russia ample casus belli to demand payment only in rubles. Rather than ceasing to purchase Russian oil altogether, it is simply sold to Europe through India, further bolstering the oil industry and the Russian economy. The odds of such elementary blunder after blunder, conveniently occurring one after another to fulfill pre-defined narratives of ‘Green Energy’ tear Hanlon’s Razor to shreds. Putin is presented to us as an unstoppable and omniscient foe in order to conceal the evident quid pro quo backroom deals negotiated between controlling figureheads placed at the helms of our countries.

Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, constituting some of the largest producers of wheat and fertilizer in the world, were ‘forced’ to shutter their exports, just as there has been a dramatic and inorganic uptick in farm and food processing plant ‘accidents’ which conveniently avoided all of WEF-aligned Bill Gates’ agricultural assets.

The ruble strengthens every week in tandem with both the price of oil and the controlled collapse of the dollar through inflationary money-printing. Conveniently, Putin has been able to point to this orchestrated crash as a symptom of an evil unipolar world, rather than allow it to be solely used as an instrument by the West to transfer power and wealth eastwards, propping up the ruble as a viable replacement to the petrodollar.

Klaus Schwab, who only just last year bragged that Vladimir Putin was a past ‘Young Global Leader’ of the World Economic Forum, stated this year that we will return to the negotiating table when the time is right. Yet, the question is begged as to why? As our position continuously weakens and Russia’s strengthens, with no changes to our current self-destructive agenda, why would we choose to finally negotiate only when at our greatest possible disadvantage?

Putin’s installation by the World Economic Forum followed that of Yeltsin, and he has been a confidant of Schwab for over thirty years. Putin has raped the Russian people during his tenure,  yet he is the opposition figure to another WEF-puppet, Joe Biden. Putin, a man at the head of a den of sin greater than D.C., now suddenly has a heart and desires to do what is ‘best’ for Russia? After a career of lies, exploitation, and adherence to the will of his WEF counterparts? But only at the most opportune timing.

Putin’s government is able to confidently predict the transition of the world to a ‘multi-polar’ one – the exact same line verbatim as Schwab. Yet, these men have been posited to us as oppositional forces, despite having the same predictions and plans for the future of the world. Russians who were abjectly anti-Putin before now implicitly trust him, when in fact it is a mere coincidence of goals that will allow the Russian people to enjoy a momentary respite from their relative national poverty, rather than any worthy acts of benevolence on behalf of the Putin government. 

Russians who previously loathed their government embrace a new era of patriotism. The opposite is happening in America, as we now salivate at the prospect of the downfall of our own corrupted institutions, which, coincidentally, are unable to handle their most basic responsibilities. 

It need not be said again that all of these events, and much more, transpire in synchronization, and we are only allowed to point to the coincidence of the combined gross incompetence of every single western government at the exact same time and say: “Wow! they sure are stupid!”

We pat ourselves on the back for calling a spade a spade. Russia and China need only passively wait as our LGBT-authoritarian regimes prove to us, and the world, that we were the evil ones all along. With Biden as the ‘face’ of America, committing sin after sin, our reputation remains irreparably mucked. The stage is set for our next controlled-opposition, milquetoast Republican puppet to simply cede what’s left of American power as a publicly approved matter of bargaining and necessity, rather than just another feigned act of incompetence, in the long string of lies beneath which we currently live.